United States v. Sanchez’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.2d 886 · 1975
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably United States v. Bonds (1993), United States v. Washington (1986)
39 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 18 U.S.C. § 842
Relies on Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Boyd v. United States · Weeks v. United States · Sedillo v. United States · Harris v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We believe that the warrant authorized only the local officers to enter and search the Sanchez property for narcotics. It could not be used to validate the entrance of a federal officer having both probable cause and the opportunity to obtain a search warrant to search for different items of property. On the facts of this case, there were two simultaneous but distinct intrusions, each conducted by separate agencies for the purpose of securing different types of property. Each search had to be authorized independently by a separate warrant unless the warrant requirement was excused by a valid exception ... [the federal agent] chose to ignore the warrant requirement and to enter the premises with local officers who were conducting a search for unrelated property. Such action circumvents the safeguards of the federal Constitution.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a law enforcement officer has prior knowledge of the existence and location of property which he has probable cause to believe is illegally possessed, as well as ample opportunity to obtain a judicially sanctioned search warrant, the Fourth Amendment mandates that he must follow this procedure. See Collidge [v. New Hampshire], 403 U.S. [443] at 482, 91 S.Ct. 2022 [at 2046, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)]; Trupiano [v. U.S.], 334 U.S. [699] at 706-708, 68 S.Ct. 1229 [at 1233-34, 92 L.Ed. 1663 (1948)]; cf. United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 492 F.2d 109, 111 (5th Cir.1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Harry“the crucial issue presented by this case [was] whether the federal agent had a right to be on the premises....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bills v. Aseltine
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.